I saw Stephen Punwasi pull exactly this same trick wrt diamond engagement rings recently. Claimed that if you put $6000 into the market instead (instead of a ring) and got 11% per year you'd have over $1M at your 50th anniversary. Absolutely sure that he picked the unrealistic 11% only because it got the number over a psychologically meaningful threshold (which isn't even that meaningful because he ignored inflation). A more realistic outcome would have been around $69K BTW. This kind of dishonesty is everywhere, which is why we have to stay on our toes.

But back to the case at hand. Yes, the numbers are a bit off, but that doesn't invalidate the basic idea. That's another too-common fallacy. $160K is nothing to sneeze at, and your $43K is just as much a fiction as Ackman's $1M. S&P grew 168% over 20 years despite volatility. It's already factored in. It looks like you're doing the same thing with double-adjusting for inflation too. The fact is that the bond would yield enough to make a significant difference for the people it's meant to help. Your numerology doesn't change that.