This is a fairly simple question to answer, and it is not really based in any sort of political ideology. The fact of the matter is that WWII ended the Great Depression. It was not until early 1943 when umemployment finally fell below pre-depression levels. During WWII Americans on the homefront now had disposible income of the likes many had never seen before. Many complained of the lack of consumer products to purchase during the war, which some considered a hardship. While FDR did take some of the advice of Sir John Maynard Kenyes, FDR still strongly believed in a balanced budget. He was unwilling to do the kind of deficeit spending, like what was spent in WWII, that would adequately stimulate the economy. By 1937, while things were significantly better than in the darkest days of 1932 there was a great deal of fear of a relapse. But at that time neither a 1930's Republican nor a 1930's Democrat was willing to spend the kind of money needed to bring the nation to a full recovery... it took a war to do that.
As for the current economic boom, many people take credit for it. The careers of Clinton and Bush in Texas have benefited from it greatly. However as to how much they actually did, it was probably very little. We should probably thank Alan Greenspan for this to be honest. I would imagine that the Clinton administration did some things to support the growing economy, but did not spur it on. As well the congress, with varying mixes of Democrats and Republicans, had a role. The long and short of it is that no single party really can make that claim. Whoever enters the Oval office in January will probably continue a very similiar fiscal policy... Bush might focus more on tax cuts, Gore more on saving social security, but much will be the same.
And if there are any points of dispute on FDR I will dig out my notes and my books and reference some materials should that need arise.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia