No, but you do get to claim responsibility for a trend that started during those 8 years. He inherited a fucked-up system from Bush and managed to turn it into reasonable economic growth. Trump inherited that growth. Trump's got something to do with it, sure, but again: of the economic policies he's implemented, very few have benefited America as a whole.
In some cases, his policies actively harmed the majority of Americans; he demonstrably does not understand how tariffs work, for instance, since both he and Fox News constantly asserted that they were charging other nations by implementing them, whereas in reality they were duties that Americans had to pay if they wanted to buy foreign goods of the affected type. This most severely affected the very people he claimed he was trying to protect.
I would also argue that at least some of the positive impact on the economy he's had can be attributed to rising confidence, as opposed to any actual policy action. He made a lot of promises and a lot of claims about how great the economy was going to be after he took over, and many people believed him; that belief, on its own, likely stimulated some growth, as it would have prompted people to be less cautious than they otherwise would have been.
(It's also kind of a crapshoot trying to suggest that any president is responsible for any economic trend in a society with a relatively free market; certainly they're very influential, but trying to blame Bush for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, for instance, isn't really fair. Blaming him for the government's failure to punish anyone for that is more fair.)