I can appreciate where you're coming from on this and many of these demands look reasonable on the surface. I'd just like to add my objections
Rather than knock on them for their many faults. Let's get to the meat of what they should be demanding if they wanted to do something about what they are mad about.
End agricultural subsidies.
I thought part of the justification for some subsidies was to provide smaller farms with a living return on investment and as a consequence stem the tide of the agri-business.
Of course one of the problems with any subsidy is that the canny learn to take advantage of them and that big business benefits best.
If agricultural subsidies are withdrawn then there'll be a lot of hardship for family farmers in the short term which will allow big business to pick up farmland more cheaply and benefit even more from economies of scale
I find it hard to argue against this one but presumably the spending goes to someone and helps to pay someone's salary. If DOD spending is cut significantly, US manufacturing is going to take a major hit. That's what has happened here in the UK, the upshot of the defence cuts is putting thousands of skilled engineers on the dole.
Close corporate tax loopholes.
I'm sure they'd love to, but it's very difficult to do.
If you insist that US based companies pay US tax on all their earnings then this will unfairly penalise companies with international business.
If you insist that all companies with a US presence pay US tax on their US (or all) income then that'll result in a major international hoo-ha
Subsidize state universities to close tuition gap.
That's a great idea, where does the money come from ?
Negotiate with major banks for new grace periods for student loans.
So now you're placing an unexpected demand on US banks that their international competitors don't have. US banks would be placed at a significant disadvantage which will just make things worse for them
End linking funding to prolific standardized testing in schools. Appoint multiyear review committees on performance instead.
So instead of objective testing you end up with subjective assessment which will necessarily be subject to political pressure. The committees (full of government fat cats) will find that schools with a religious slant are doing fine while secular schools are mysteriously found wanting.
Which will inevitably mean that the rich seeking election will be operating at an even greater advantage than Joe Public. The rich can meet many costs out of their own pocket (especially "soft" costs like travel), the rest of us cannot.
Reinvest in infrastructure improvements.
Even I cannot come up with an argument against this one, so long as the infrastructure improvements don't turn into a huge boondoggle. The investment should deliver high requirement infrastructure, develop required technologies and deliver required skills.
Bust up key defense contractor and aerospace monopolies.
The cost of developing any aerospace system these days is so ruinously expensive that there's only space for a handful of companies globally. Forcing US companies to split would put them at a significant disadvantage globally.
Anyone got anything else they may want to add?
Almost all of what you say are laudable objectives. I just think that there are significant consequences associated with each that need to be thought through.
. 
