Part of Atlas Shrugged really resonated with me, and still does. I think we've all had the experience of having someone else try to benefit from our work without having to do anything for themselves, all the while aware of what they are doing and aware that they could choose to do something else. It's a frustrating - even infuriating - experience. I think this experience explains quite a bit of her anger that comes out in the book, particularly during the John Galt soliloquy.
With all that said, I think the tie between Altas Shrugged and Paul Ryan is not one of being emotionally one way or another; it's about the appropriateness of taking a human experience that I find bothersome and translating it into a belief about government policy. And that's where I think that Rand's philosophy breaks down.
The truth is that there will - and have to be, whether anyone likes it or not - cases where some portion of the population works really hard, and much of the spoils that come from their work goes to the benefit of others. And, truth be told, I think that the number of people who really aren't okay with that are very few. The argument comes on the more specific issue around who should do more for themselves and who cannot. If we were able to measure this accurately and reliably, a lot of these argument would go away.
Sad that this is the direction that the US debate is headed. The real issue on the table is how to get a profligate spender under control before (very much like the end of Atlas Shrugged) there is nothing to fight over.
United States 
Australia