It seems like folks are very quick to confuse the expressiveness of a machine with the expressiveness of analyzing programs for that machine; usually, a program is far harder to analyze than to run.
I think that a better way to view the post's author's point is by unpredictability. Given a short program in a weak setting, we can not only predict what the program will do, but what the program cannot do, usually because it is too short or too simple. In a Turing-complete setting, though, there are short programs with very unpredictable behavior.