I think, maybe, my language has confused my point.
I have probably said "got" a few times, implying that my concern is who initial "got" the funds, whilst that is in the past, and what is of concern right now is who has "got" the funds now. Again, my comment, time and time again, is to money not just vanishing. To say "but it was spent" etc. is focusing on what was, rather what is. The marbles were flung out by whatever method, and they did not just vanish again. They are still about. And, if you don't have them (right now) then someone else does.
As you say in your second post, if there is a subsequent scarcity of resources, that additional money supply is chasing those limited resources, and fuelling inflation. There was no significant scarcity of resources after 2008, so QE bolstered the asset market which is largely ignored in inflation figures. Did the money "trickle down" to increase aggregate demand at lower levels? The data suggests that it did not, so a period of low inflation, low interest rates.
But now the "double whammy" that you mention - increased money supply at the levels of wealth that like to "invest" additional funds AND a reduction of goods available to be consumed by the lower levels of the wealth spectrum. So inflation.
If interest rates rise too far in relation to wages, we will, of course, see issues in mortgage defaults. But i doubt that will actually affect house prices as much as the recessions toward the end of the last centaury, as there is that much more money sloshing about high up the wealth scale, looking for assets.
Time will tell, i guess.