Holy cow! If you're talking about the Great Depression and the double dip recession of 1937-38, the reason there was growth was the massive infusion of federal dollars, first in the form of the National Recovery Act (the original NRA) and the advent of World War II and all of the investment that resulted as the nation re-armed. And the reason for the recession of 1937-38 is that Congress pulled back on spending to balance the budget, which slowed economic activity. Want to put people to work? Start a massive war. Deficit as a percentage of GDP skyrocketed in both those instances, partially because GDP dropped and federal spending increased, but certainly higher than it was until the 2008 recession.
World War II doesn't get nearly the attention it should receive as a transformative agent in our economic history. Anti-New Dealers continue to claim that Roosevelt's policies didn't work and that only the war got us back on track, which would have more credence if the anti-New Dealers would have let Roosevelt policies run their course instead of prematurely balancing the budget. Where World War II had its biggest effects was in the boost to heavy industries first related to the war effort, but then re-tooled to other heavy goods, which created a jobs environment for GIs returning from the war. GIs returning from the war included a lot of country and small-town guys who flocked to the cities for the economic opportunity, leaving low-efficiency agriculture which had no future for these new jobs (which were often union jobs). This created a housing boom and more economic activity. And lest we forget, the GI bill provided education benefits which a lot of returning veterans used to improve their education status, creating a managerial class that promoted higher earnings as well.
The situation in 2009 was vastly different. I'm not going to tout the recovery as being great, but the vast differences in demography that existed in the 1930s/1940s and 2009 make them two entirely different animals.
